Refer to the exhibit. This diagram depicts the design of a small network that will run EIGRP on R1 and R2, and EIGRP Stub on R3. In which two ways will this network be impacted if there is link instab

This assumes R1 maintains stable, full routes from R2 and R3 during link instability between R1 and R2, but the instability itself means R1 may lose or fluctuate routes from R2, making this an unreliable statement.

A stub router still receives all routing updates from its upstream non-stub peers; EIGRP Stub only restricts what routes R3 advertises and prevents R3 from being queried during reconvergence, so R3's routing table still contains routes originating from both R1 and R2.

Like option A, this assumes R2 will have consistent routes from R1 and R3 during active link instability between R1 and R2, which cannot be guaranteed during a flapping event.

EIGRP Stub routing explicitly prevents R3 from being used as a transit router, so this is the direct opposite of the correct behavior defined by the stub feature.

EIGRP Stub explicitly marks R3 as a dead-end router, causing R1 and R2 to never use R3 as a transit path between them; non-stub peers will not forward traffic through a stub router, which is the primary design intent of EIGRP Stub.